>>That is too funny. Of course they have stacked the deck by making the "real" pictures as unappealing as possible, but it does make you think. I checked a few at random and was laughing out loud. (OK, so I'm easily amused).
>>
>>The scary part is a couple were unidentifiable to me. For example, http://pundo3000.com/htms/59.htm. What on earth is that?! Rat McNuggets?
>
>That's packaging the American way. It says "NEW". It says "Florentian". It says "miraculous". It just doesn't say what.
>
>I started wearing reading (aka monitoring :) glasses seven years ago. My lenses got lazy within weeks, and the first trouble with that was that I couldn't read the small print in some situations when I don't have my blindoscopes at hand: which one out of these seven bottles is a shampoo (not real poo, just a sham), and which six are conditioners (that's Murphy's law of bathroom bottles for you - at any time, there's only one shampoo). Guess what, there's a lot of text in large friendly letters, like "NEW" ,"improved", "33% more", "voluminizing", "discombobulating" etc. The actual word "shampoo" or "conditioner" was somewhere in the province of small print.
>
>The previous paragraph happened often enough, and I have done some research (i.e. searched again and again and couldn't find one bottle in any of the shops which had the word "shampoo" printed large enough). Same goes for socks - if they weren't on the shelf with other, unpackaged socks, you wouldn't know what's inside.

I just want to find a shampoo somewhere that doesn't double as either a salad dressing, or fruit punch. I want something that I put on my hair, rub it in, rinse it, and my hair is clean. Why is that so terrible a thing to want?